Intentional "mint errors?"

[BillJones]

Does anyone else think that mint errors, like the presidential dollars with no edge lettering, are “intentional errors?” I have come that conclusion.

 

Years a go a lot of mint errors were intention because crooked mint employees were making the stuff and finding creative ways to get it out of the facility. The mint broke up that ring and prosecuted the guilty.

 

Now I think the mint is doing this to generate collector interest. A point is fact is that we see very few, if any, run of the mill errors like off center coins, double strikes and the like. If the mint can catch those, how has this other stuff gotten out into circulation?

 

The U.S. mint system has become a marketing agency these days, and I think that some of these “errors” are part of the strategy.

 

[WinstonWare]

I believe that it’s just business as usual for our government. I don’t know that they are smart enough to have a plan to generate collector interest. Sounds too complicated for them.

[bsshog40]

I think it's no different than any other company that does mass production. You will always have a defect somewhere.

[cpm9ball]

When you consider that the Mint produces billions of coins every year, you have to accept the fact that some errors will slip past inspection, even for proof coins. The problems the Mint has encountered with the edge lettering is not surprising. After all, this process hasn't been used for quite a long time, and I'm sure that all of the veteran employees of that era are long gone. The employees of today have to focus on learning this process through trial and error. The Mint is modifying their production procedures to minimize these errors. As examples, they are now using color-coded collection bins, and they are in the process of combining the edge lettering with the coin striking so that mix-ups will not occur.

 

Furthermore, if any, and I do mean ANY , Mint employee authorized or ordered the intentional production of error coins, they would be violating federal law and subject to prosecution.

 

 

Chris

 

[supertooth]

Bill----Agree 100%. I have thought that way for years. Once you have them looking for one thing, it isn't hard to get them interested in looking for something else. Put the product out there----make the consumer THINK that they NEED it----and they will scramble to buy it for sure. Got to get one before the next guy finds it first.

 

Am sure that not ALL of the quirks are fabricated---but I bet a lot of them are. Bob [supertooth]

[jesbroken]

Bill,

I might agree with yours and others' opinion regarding intentional errors, if not for one thing-both business strike and proof strike quality is so poor. Were the strike quality up to snuff, then maybe this would be a viable proposition, but with the quality at an all time low(JMO) heads will eventually roll, and it only takes one head to rat out the other head were some sort of "conspiracy" an actuality. I think like most of our government operations, unfortunately, quality is a back shelf item-not for the public. The old saying, "Good enough for the government" did not come around for no reason. They just don't care! Before i get flamed by many forum members who have friends at the mint-I do not mean every mint employee is a noncaring person. I mean that cost cutbacks to ensure management goals affect the product's quality at the U.S.MInt just as in any business. I believe if could speak to the average worker at one of their smoke breaks you would find out the problems in a short time. They will know. Ross Perot used this tactic many times to find management issues within his companies.

 

[chinook]

I have zero interest in these modern "errors". I feel they just pull good money away from good coins.

[RUSS BEGA]

Does anyone else think that mint errors, like the presidential dollars with no edge lettering, are “intentional errors?” I have come that conclusion.

 

Years a go a lot of mint errors were intention because crooked mint employees were making the stuff and finding creative ways to get it out of the facility. The mint broke up that ring and prosecuted the guilty.

 

Now I think the mint is doing this to generate collector interest. A point is fact is that we see very few, if any, run of the mill errors like off center coins, double strikes and the like. If the mint can catch those, how has this other stuff gotten out into circulation?

 

The U.S. mint system has become a marketing agency these days, and I think that some of these “errors” are part of the strategy.

 

We know it's hapened in the past. the 1913 V nickels, the barber quarter with a washintong qtr. reverse. the 1884/1885 trade dollars. i wouldnt doubt it's happening now

[James_OldeTowne]

While I think many mint errors have been contrived over the years (going back to the mid-1800s), I don't think the plain-ege coins are. Despite how simple it sounds, applying lettered edges to coins is a remarkably complicated process, and experience has shown that such errors, as well as doubled edges, erratic edges, etc., are going to happen.

[Keleum]

I think the only intention here is mis manage-mint. When you put a life long poltician at the head of huge complex manufacturing facilities. You wind up without understanding at the top levels of management, when you try and explain why a certain production process is flawed, it probably falls on deaf ears, once you ask for money.

 

I think it's time to seperate the proof/buillon "business" away from the mint proper. It detracts from the mint's mission, as an instrument to manage money.

[mhardin2413]

given our government's inabilities in other areas, i.e. iraq and afghanistan, i am surprised they haven't made bigger mistakes. maybe they could put osama's picture on the coins and use them like they did the iraqi playing cards with hussein's picture. of couse, if i stop posting all of a sudden, look for me in guantanamo.

[MikeInFL]

Do you have even a shred of evidence to support your assertion?

 

With the absence of proof to the contrary, I believe that these errors are just that, and not something more nefarious...Mike

[DC Dawg]

Bill----Agree 100%. I have thought that way for years. Once you have them looking for one thing, it isn't hard to get them interested in looking for something else. Put the product out there----make the consumer THINK that they NEED it----and they will scramble to buy it for sure. Got to get one before the next guy finds it first.

 

Am sure that not ALL of the quirks are fabricated---but I bet a lot of them are. Bob [supertooth]

Two weeks ago, I had taken my nephews to the Philadelphia Mint. If you want to talk about a modern manufacturing facility, the US Mint is a marvelous example of a high tech manufacturing environment. The Mint employee I spoke with said that the process is about 90-percent automated.

 

In short, the process from cutting the planchets to bagging the coins after striking is not touched or impeded by human intervention. It does take a human to change the dies and collars in the various machine. From the observation window, 40 feet above the production floor, I was shown the presses that strikes the $1 coins and how the coins are dropped to a conveyor and sent to the press that stamps the edge letters.

 

Physically, the planchets are delivered from the preparation room via a conveyor that runs over the floor but under the observation deck. The blanks are dropped into the bin and fed, one at a time, into the press for striking. The press strikes 750 coins per minute. Struck coins are deposited into a conveyor near the bottom of the machine. The way the system is engineered, the conveyors are not human accessible during regular operations--there is access for maintenance, but the presses cannot be running.

 

On the $1 line, there are four active edge presses (two backup machines). According to the Mint employee I spoke with, the edge lettering process was running at 500 coins per minute. But the machines could not keep up without problems. Also, another problem was the connection between the conveyor and the press. The conveyor had to be "raised" to drop the coins in the hopper. Because the edge lettering machines was running at a slower speed, there was a pacing issue.

 

Although the Mint employee did not confirm my suspicion, it appears that the intake hopper was over loaded and the blank edge coins were "spill overs," dropping from the hopper to the conveyor below. The doubling error is from the machines getting out of adjustment and not ejecting the coins properly. The coins fall back into the collar and are stamped a second time.

 

Based on my conversation with the Mint employee, the Mint slowed down the striking press, conveyor and the edge stamping process. The mechanisms that eject the coins were adjusted and the conveyor has an overflow sensor that warns employees of a problem. I think they can slow down or stop the striking process if the sensor is tripped.

 

Finally, it should be impossible to see edge lettering on the Sac Dollars because the presses that strike the Sac Dollars are not connected to the conveyor that feeds the edge lettering presses. The only way to have Sac Dollars with edge lettering is for someone to drop a struck dollar in the edge lettering machine or put the wrong dies in the Presidential dollar press.

 

After speaking with the Mint employee for over 20 minutes, I asked about the accusation of the Mint creating the errors on purpose to generate interest in the new dollars. I was told that the US Mint is the largest manufacturer of coins in the world and that it has a reputation for quality that they feel is better than anyone else in the world (this is my paraphrase of what I was told). The people of the Philadelphia facility take tremendous pride in their work and they feel insulted that people would accuse them of this without investigating the Mint's operations. This person did say that errors happen, but the estimate of errors, including the ones that do not make it out of the Mint, average about 2-3 percent of total production. That is less than the 5-percent the commercial industry uses as standard for shrinkage and spoilage!

 

From what I saw of the process, I have to say that I agree with the person I spoke with. The way the facility is engineered, there is no physical way to have any human effect on the coins to cause the errors we see. Based on the percentage of errors, the John Adams production was better than the Washington production. They are hoping that the Jefferson production was even better than Washington and Adams. It was almost as if the Mint employee said, "I dare you to find an error!"

 

Sorry if this was a little rambling. I have been typing this between doing "real work" over the last two hours. I have a better write-up in draft that will be posted to my blog, shortly.

 

I hope that helps the understanding and quashes the conspiracy theorists.

 

Scott

[MunkyMan95]

Actually, I agree with you Bill. I 100% believe that the GW Smooth Edge coins were a marketing ploy to not only gain interest from collectors, but from the public as well. I mean, it's 50,000 plus coins that have already been graded, not counting the raw ones that are still out there. How does something like that go completely unnoticed?

[supertooth]

Seems to me that I remember that the mint released many thousands of 1955 double die cents---that they could have stopped from being sent out ---IF THEY HAD WANTED TO. Surely they knew that collectors would find them. Here 52 years later hardly a cent collector doesn't wish that he had one. And to get one costs quite a bit of money.

 

What one sees in the open---is not necessarily what goes on in private. A little turn here----a little turn there. Two shifts later----a little turn here and a little turn there. All of a sudden nothing is as it was---as a human was involved. The machines only do what the humans WANT them to do----until there is too much produced and wear occurs---then even the machines seem to do what they want to do. My computer is a fine example of that.

 

In life, there is NO perfection. And there are a few bad eggs in any profession. Recently we see a bad ref in basketball----baseball steroid users. The list is endless. It only takes one bad apple to make the whole basket bad. And, if there is a profit to be made, there will ALWAYS be a willing participant. Bob [supertooth]

[nwcs]

Some interesting statements made on both sides. I, for now, incline to think that it is a byproduct of production and not intentionally done. The government rarely is good enough to hold a secret. If this was intentional then word would likely have gotten out. And once it did it could probably be used as leverage in court with regard to the irrational policy of keeping coins like the 1964 peace in the dark.

[xJack]

edit: comments already stated by someone else